Cadillac Escalade and ESV Forum - 2015+ Discussion, 2015 Tahoe ltz in Cadillac Escalade Forums; Originally Posted by hcvone
I also thought a Corvette would never cost over 100k, my first turbo 911 Porsche in ...

I also thought a Corvette would never cost over 100k, my first turbo 911 Porsche in 86' was 56k new, my twin turbo in 96' was 95k, now that car is 165k, and you know if they make a platinum Escalade it's going to be about 100k. I will say the Tahoe I had was as nice as my platinum Escalade in every way except performance

I just read a article on autoblog today, they were talking about the Denali and Tahoe pricing and how it's out of this world and they GM is taking a risk.

Re: 2015 Tahoe ltz

Originally Posted by kars79

I test drove tahoe ltz yesterday,
All I can say is WOW.
What a difference,
So smooth,so quite and comfortable.
Steering felt great and well balanced with 22's.
Lots of leather all around,
Looks way better then pictures.
Everything I touched felt like I'm in range rover.
Nav screen was bright and very responsive.
Engine felt a lot more livelier then old 5.3 engine.
Msrp was high, $70750.
But for what you are getting I don't think people will complain much at all.
If tahoe is this good I just can't wait for escalade to come out.
Only complain that I have is
Since 3rd row fold flat it seems like less room back there but I would much rather for it to fold flat then take them out.

Yeah but getting $6-7k off is not hard at all.
I called a dealer for Denali today and they told me they would give me around $6k off
So if I push them they will do $7k off on Denali.
I know someone who ordered thru them and got $7k off.
Looks like in few months getting $10k off is not gonna be hard at all.

Re: 2015 Tahoe ltz

Originally Posted by Nihsel10

True. Question: lets say a person drive the high qualilty car daily and doesn't go crazy like hitting max rev or go really fast, It would be ok to use the 87, correct? or should they remain using premium despite that type of driving habit?

My H2 is over 50k, definitely not selling it, no problems at all and I don't drive it as much as the ESV. I don't do any crazy driving, simple cruising back and forth.

In this case you are obviously better off than if you were pushing the limits of the motor, but I would still use the gas recommended by the manufacturer, period. You have to assume this was a cost of owning the vehicle. That said, you are still getting value. Look at the turbo Caddy is putting in the ATS. That motor has a ton of power per liter and is incredibly efficient. You just could not get that kind of power and MPG from a motor on 87 octane.

My point is simply to dispel the myth that certain motors don't run on 87 octane because the engineers were too cheap or incompetent. It is merely a trade-off that they believe will benefit an owner of a vehicle that wants a good balance of performance and MPGs.

----------

Originally Posted by evois

why do I get better mileage with using premium vs regular in both city and highway driving?

In the old days before the systems were as advanced you would get noticeably better mileage with premium, likely due to the motor running hotter and cleaner. more heat = more power...unfortunately too much heat = kaboom. race car drivers push the limits of this relationship constantly to gain advantage on the track.

These days, the computer systems in cars are so much better that they actually, in a way, penalize you for not using the gas specified by the manufacturer. For instance, most modern computers on a real time basis can change the timing of when the spark plugs fire into the cylinders to compensate for the increased octane in order to preserve the factory tune. In effect, this means the performance gains you might otherwise see by "tricking" the computer in older vehicles just aren't there today. This means you are not likely to see nearly the performance boost you would hope for by paying up for premium over regular gas if you car is not tuned for it.

Like I said in a previous post, however, nowadays the problem with the modding community is on the other end of the spectrum. Kids buying Mustangs these days think that the computers can compensate for anything! In truth, retarding timing or other computer controlled reactions can only do so much. At some point you will overwhelm the motor if the mechanical components are not upgraded as well.

Re: 2015 Tahoe ltz

Originally Posted by BEarle

I just read a article on autoblog today, they were talking about the Denali and Tahoe pricing and how it's out of this world and they GM is taking a risk.

It's very simple in regards to the pricing. We all just need to not buy them and GM will quickly realize that they have priced these way too high. I am going to hold off, but the challenge is will all of you be able to do it?

Re: 2015 Tahoe ltz

Originally Posted by Jpjr

In this case you are obviously better off than if you were pushing the limits of the motor, but I would still use the gas recommended by the manufacturer, period. You have to assume this was a cost of owning the vehicle. That said, you are still getting value. Look at the turbo Caddy is putting in the ATS. That motor has a ton of power per liter and is incredibly efficient. You just could not get that kind of power and MPG from a motor on 87 octane.

My point is simply to dispel the myth that certain motors don't run on 87 octane because the engineers were too cheap or incompetent. It is merely a trade-off that they believe will benefit an owner of a vehicle that wants a good balance of performance and MPGs.

Yep. Some people like to penny pinch as well because saving 2-5 bucks a tank "means" something to them.

Re: 2015 Tahoe ltz

The Chevrolet Tahoe follows a simple, three-tiered equipment level program, with LS models starting at $45,595, leather-lined LT models at $50,995 and the top-shelf LTZ coming in at $60,290 (prices include destination). The GMC Yukon is available in SLE ($47,330) and fancier SLT ($55,730) trims, while the glitzy Denali trims, which are estimated to represent a considerable 60-percent of Yukon sales, start at $63,675.

Adding 4WD represents a $3K hike in price, and if you want long-wheelbase models (Suburban/Yukon XL), budget another $2,700 or so. New tech features include forward collision alert, lane departure warning, blind spot and rear cross-path monitors, and radar cruise control. Since these are high-theft rate vehicles, according to GM, a new theft package is offered, with interior movement, vehicle inclination and glass-break sensors, and a self-powered horn. Load it all up, and a Suburban can top out in the mid-$70Ks, while Yukon XL Denalis can kiss $80K with the 22-in wheels, four-wheel drive and the dual-screen rear-seat entertainment system.

That tells me that the fully loaded Escalade ESV will easily approach $90K

Re: 2015 Tahoe ltz

I know several people who have the fill size GM SUVs that have over 200k miles with zero repairs. Original alternators etc. I don't know anybody with a range rover who can say that. Unfortunately our tahoe has cost us $6k over 7 years due to the original owner not taking care of it.

Re: 2015 Tahoe ltz

The LTZ cost money. The base Tahoe is reasonable. We looked at the new Tahoe today. The front end with HID's are nice. The new back windows, and rear quarter section look ridiculous. We are keeping the Escalade for another few years.

Re: 2015 Tahoe ltz

Originally Posted by gmfamily

For 71k it should feel like a Range Rover, being that the Range Rover sport starts at 62k lol. The price of the GM trucks is outrageous. You should never have a Chevy priced with a Range Rover. I am not saying the Tahoe is not a good SUV, it's just competing too up market. It will become like the Toyota Land Cruiser, a rare, overpriced, slow selling unit. At least the the Land Crusier can off road and you can pass it down to grandchildren with 300,000 miles. With all the new electronics the 70k Tahoe will be sitting in Chevy service the first couple of years. Sorry to vent, just upset I had to buy a Jeep because the price to value on the new Escalade is horrible. How about taking some of the huge profit GM makes on these and produce a product that's ahead of the competition, not just catching up. Is there one area the GM trucks are better than their competition?

You are comparing the fully loaded Tahoe vs a base RR Sport. Fully loaded sport is just shy of 100k. Trust me, if you sat in a new RR Sport 5.0 SuperCharged Autobiography and then a Tahoe, the two aren't comparable in the slightest, and I've test driven both. The Tahoe is in a different size class, the RR is in a different luxury class. It's an apples to oranges comparison. We bought a Jeep GC Summit for my girlfriend after first looking at the Tahoe. The 2014 Tahoe just looked terrible on the inside she thought (I agree), I'm sure the 2015 is better though.

Yes, there is one area the GM trucks are better than the competition, ok maybe two. Size and body shape. No one else is making large SUVs other than GM. Here is how Id do it if I were GM

Tahoe 45-65k
Yukon 55-75k
Escalade 85-110k

Of course you'd have to increase the luxury level and quality of the Escalade to justify that price, but there is still a lot of room for improvement in the 2015. They need a larger gap between the Yukon and Escalade, who is going to shell out 77k for a fully loaded Yukon Denali if you can step up to the Escalade for a few thousand more?

Re: 2015 Tahoe ltz

Originally Posted by gmfamily

For 71k it should feel like a Range Rover, being that the Range Rover sport starts at 62k lol. The price of the GM trucks is outrageous. You should never have a Chevy priced with a Range Rover. I am not saying the Tahoe is not a good SUV, it's just competing too up market. It will become like the Toyota Land Cruiser, a rare, overpriced, slow selling unit. At least the the Land Crusier can off road and you can pass it down to grandchildren with 300,000 miles. With all the new electronics the 70k Tahoe will be sitting in Chevy service the first couple of years. Sorry to vent, just upset I had to buy a Jeep because the price to value on the new Escalade is horrible. How about taking some of the huge profit GM makes on these and produce a product that's ahead of the competition, not just catching up. Is there one area the GM trucks are better than their competition?

I think you have the chevy tahoe to pick if you want it to be in that price bracket while benefiting the attributes of the fully loaded luxurious cadillac escalade. likewise, the RRS doesn't start at $62k. A 2014.5 RRS HSE with a "3.0L V6 S/C!" starts at $71k and fully optioned is $78k. The RRS SUPERCHARGED starts at $75k and with options tops at $82k. An RRS ATB tops out at $95k. What the cadillac escalade brings are: reliability, full size SUV, value(believe it or not) and luxury. Compared to the competition, you will know that it will not break or leave stranded in the middle of the road.

Re: 2015 Tahoe ltz

I totally agree Land Rover and Tahoe are apple's and oranges. That being said a lot of people buying the Tahoe will not use all its size. If your not, you could technically cross shop LR4 ( three rows) or Range
Rover Sport. As far as reliability, I think Land Rover is turning it around? I have not heard any horror stories with the new ones yet.

Really my only point is Chevy is the middle class option compared to the Escalade. At 71K your in a car bracket (i.e. RR) for bigger earners. If your going to get the cheaper LS or LT you loose a lot of luxury and style. At that point you might be better off with a minivan or 3 row crossover. They usually have more utility and practicality (sans towing) any how.